Tuesday, November 29, 2016

I propose
here that there are three options for targeting of grammar and vocabulary: not
targeting at all, and two types of targeting.

Nontargeted
input (NT):I argued for this option in Krashen
(2013).It rests on a corollary of the Comprehension
Hypothesis: Given enough comprehensible input, all the structures and vocabulary
items the acquirer is ready to acquire are present in the input, and naturally
reviewed. In other words, we don't have to aim at i+1; i+1 will be there.

NT asserts
that aspects of grammar will be acquired in the predictable natural order as
the result of exposure to comprehensible input.

Targeted Input

With
nontargeted input, unfamiliar vocabulary and unacquired grammar are made
comprehensible with the help of context, linguistic and non-linguistic. There are times,
however, when targeting is useful – when acquirers are or will soon be faced
with tasks that require knowledge of some specific vocabulary and/or grammar that
they have not yet acquired and that will not be comprehensible without special attention.

We can distinguish two kinds of targeting: The first
is consistent with the "skill-building" view of language development
and the second is consistent with the Comprehension Hypothesis.

Targeting 1
(T1):

1.The goal is
full mastery of the rule or vocabulary in a short time, so complete that it can
be easily retrieved and used in production.

2.The source
of the items to be targeted is external, from a syllabus made by others (not
the teacher). The teacher's job when doing T1 is to find a story or
activity that will provide extra exposure to and use of the target items. Thus,
Targeting 1 is a way of "contextualizing" grammar or vocabulary.

3.T1 consists
of "practice" in using the target items. "Practice"
generally consists of skill-building, first consciously learning the new items,
and then "automatizing" them by using them in output, and getting
corrected to fine-tune conscious knowledge of the rule or meaning of the word.
"Automatizing" means converting explicit, or consciously learned
competence into implicit, or acquired competence.It has been argued that T1 does not result in
the automatization or acquisition of language (Krashen, 1982, VanPatten, 2016).
The best we can hope for with T1 is highly monitored performance.

Targeting 2
(T2):

1. Unlike T1, the goal of T2 is comprehension of the
story or activity, not full mastery of the targeted item in a short time. It can be done in a variety of ways, e.g. via
visual content (e.g. pictures), translation.

3. The source of the items to be targeted is internal;
e.g. the story.

4. This kind of targeting generally results in partial
acquisition, enough to understand the text. Full acquisition of the targeted
item develops gradually, when the item appears in the input again and again, in
other stories or activities, assuming that the targeted item is at the
students' i+1.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

"Catch-up kids" (Nov. 27) sends the message that high standards will lead to hard work and real achievement. But there is no evidence that tougher standards lead to more learning, and no evidence showing that the Common Core standards are better at preparing children for college and career than other standards or than no standards.

The core of any successful literacy programs is enjoying stories and helping children develop a pleasure reading habit. Scientific studies show that children who hear lots of stories and are read to become enthusiastic readers, and develop more than satisfactory levels of literacy. This can happen at any age.

Forcing young children to study flashcards in the car and spell words during family outings in order to "master" 100 words is turning kindergarten into kindergrind. Children who develop a love of reading will master thousands of words, without suffering.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

PUBLISHED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, DECEMBER 3, 2016, as "Reading is a form of nutrition to the mind."
The WSJ left out the sentence about President Obama.

“The Need to Read” agrees with a great deal
of research. Studies show that fiction readers develop the capacity to
empathize with others and have a greater tolerance for vagueness. Dedicated
readers also develop higher levels of literacy and have more knowledge of
literature, social studies, science and even practical matters.Studies consistently show that the quality of
available libraries is associated with how much reading is done. Ironically, as
our knowledge of the value of reading increases, support for school and public
libraries and librarians has been decreasing. Isaac Asimov’s insight is still
valid: “When I read about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut,
I can only think that American society has found one more way to destroy
itself.”Em. Prof. Stephen
KrashenUniversity of Southern
CaliforniaLos Angeles

Original version sent to the Wall St. Journal, November 26, 2016.

Will Schwalbe's insightful essay, "The need to read," (Nov. 25) agrees with a great deal of research: Studies show that fiction readers develop the capacity to empathize with others and have a greater tolerance for vagueness. Dedicated readers also develop higher levels of literacy and have more knowledge of literature, social studies, science and even practical matters.
In an interview in the Guardian (October 28, 2015), President Obama gave fiction the credit for his understanding that "the world is complicated and full of grays ... (and that) it's possible to connect with someone else even though they're very different from you."
Studies consistently show that library quality is associated with how much reading is done. Ironically, as our knowledge of the value of reading increases, support for school and public libraries and librarians has been decreasing.
Isaac Asimov was right in 1995 and his insight is still valid: "When I read about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that American society has found one more way to destroy itself."

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Original article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-need-to-read-1480083086

Sources

Interview with President Obama: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/28/president-obama-says-novels-taught-him-citizen-marilynne-robinson?CMP=share_btn_tw

Fiction and literacy development: Krashen, S 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann and Libraries Unlimited. Sullivan, A. & Brown, M. 2014. Vocabulary from Adolescence to Middle Age. Centre for Longitudinal Studies, University of London

Jeon,
E-Y., and Day, R. 2016. The effectiveness of ER on reading proficiency: A
meta-analysis. Reading in a Foreign Language 28(2): 246-265. http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/

Evidence: Correlational
studies

Predictors of
performance on the Spanish subjunctive by English speakers

Predictor

beta

p-value

Study

0.0052

0.72

Residence

0.051

0.73

Reading

0.32

0.034

subjunctive
study

0.045

0.76

Stokes,
Krashen & Kartchner, 1998 Factors in the acquisition of the present
subjunctive in Spanish: The role of reading and study. ITL: Review of Applied
Linguistics 121-122:19-25. http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles.php?cat=6

Explains best use of the
first language: When it makes input more comprehensible; eg success of
bilingual programs.(McField, G. & McField, D.
2014.The consistent outcome of
bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses. In G. McField
(Ed.) The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age
Publishing. pp. 267-299.)

RIVAL HYPOTHESES

Grammar instruction: Strict
limits on the learning, use of grammar: Know the rule, think about correctness,
time: (Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition, www. sdkrashen.com).

Monday, November 14, 2016

F. H. Buckley says he knows "How Trump can make American schools great again." (Nov. 13): Vouchers and competition. But American schools are quite good: A number of serious scientific studies have shown that our unspectacular international test scores are due to our very high rate of child poverty, now 21%, the highest of all industrialized countries. In New York City, it is 31%.
When researchers statistically control for the effect of poverty, American test scores are near the top of the world. This suggests that there is no serious problem with our teachers, our schools of education, or our teachers' unions. The problem is poverty.
Children living in poverty suffer from food deprivation, lack of adequate medical care, and have little access to books. Each of these has a strong negative effect on school performance.
Until we manage to make substantial progress in reducing poverty, we can easily protect children against some of its effects by improving school food programs, investing more in school nurses, and investing more in school libraries and librarians.
We can pay for a great deal of this by eliminating unnecessary testing. Instead of weighing the animal more frequently and more precisely, let’s feed it.

Control for the effect of poverty: Carnoy, M and Rothstein, R. 2013, What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2012. http://www.epi.org/). Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Bracey, G. 2009. The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report;